This seemed to me to be an ideal opportunity to question her on two issues that she is clearly passionate about, but seem to me to be diametrically opposed: Tapping the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) and reducing carbon emissions. So, I submitted the following question, several hours prior to the chat:

Dear Speaker Pelosi,

Perhaps you could clarify an issue that is confusing to me. On the one hand, you have spoken passionately for the need to combat global warming by reducing our carbon emissions. This is clearly a priority for you, as well as for the Democratic Party. On the other hand, you have also come out strongly in favor of tapping oil from our Strategic Petroleum Reserve in order to bring oil prices down. Given that high prices are causing the public to abandon SUVs and to embrace fuel efficiency and mass transit - exactly the sorts of things that need to happen if we are to reduce carbon emissions - how is your position on the SPR not completely at odds with your position on global warming? If in fact you push through your proposal on the SPR, won't that lead to increased consumption and therefore increased carbon emissions?

Had I been a bit more long-winded, I would have pointed to reports that gasoline demand is in fact down this year, breaking a multi-year trend of increasing demand. Or I could have shown many news stories showing record demand for Priuses while SUVs are not moving. Of course the reason demand is down is price-driven. Price is the most practical handle we have on moderating demand.

Unfortunately, Speaker Pelosi (or the person screening the questions) decided not to answer my question. Instead, they answered a question in which she could once more push for tapping the SPR!

Marietta, Georgia:Dear Madam Speaker,

Although this forum is primarily focused on your book, I cannot help but bring up an issue that is affecting each and every American. Why have the American people not seen energy legislation that lowers the price of gas?

Thank you

Nancy Pelosi: Now let's pivot from book questions to a topic many of you have raised: the high price of gasoline at the pump and what we can do about it.

Every American family is affected by the high price of oil and gas. It is our responsibility in Congress to protect the consumer and increase the domestic supply of energy. For the past 18 months, the Democrats in Congress have set forth an energy agenda. Some has been passed into law - and some has been blocked by the Republicans.

House Democrats have put forward 13 major proposals that would increase supply, reduce prices, protect consumers and transition America to a clean, renewable energy-independent future. Each time a majority of House Republicans have voted against these proposals.

Let me be very clear: drilling for oil in protected areas offshore will not bring down the price at the pump for 10 years - and then only 2 cents. To say otherwise is a hoax on the American people.

Here's what we can do:

1. Free Our Oil

We can have immediate price relief at the pump. Freeing our oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve will bring down the price of oil in 10 days. President Bush refuses to take this step for immediate relief.

10 years or 10 days - the choice is clear.

2. Use It or Lose It

Democrats passed the Drill Bill which says to Big Oil "Use it or lose it!" - drill in the 68 million acres in the lower 48 states or let someone else drill there. Also, "use it or lose it in Alaska. All of these areas have permits for drilling - and will produce oil sooner than drilling in protected areas offshore.

3. End Excessive Speculation Which Raises the Price of Oil

Democrats were part of a strong bipartisan vote was taken in the House but GOP leaders twisted arms to block passage.

4. Repeal the subsidies for Big Oil

With Big Oil making record profits, they do not need American taxpayers funding their drilling.

Instead we can invest in research, renewable energy, and tax credits for wind, solar and other renewables. This passed the House but failed in the Senate by one vote - John McCain was absent that day but said he would have voted no.

There is immediate relief for the consumer - if only President Bush would free our oil.

I must say that Number 5 is a surprise. I have long advocated that instead of recycling our natural gas into ethanol, it would be much more efficient to use it directly as fuel. As I have pointed out before, Brazil - the poster child for ethanol production - also has 8 times the number of natural gas vehicles on the road as we do in the U.S. They don't waste their natural gas separating ethanol from water. In addition to Brazil - Argentina, Pakistan, Italy, and India all have larger natural gas fleets than does the U.S. So for those who suggest that we don't have the infrastructure in place to manage this, maybe we can learn from India and Pakistan. So I agree with Pelosi on this point: As our supply of oil depletes, we can ease the decline with natural gas.

Number 1 on Pelosi's list is the very contradiction I asked about, Number 2 promotes a myth (there already is a 'use it or lose it' provision in the law) and is nothing more than pandering, Number 3 is again in contrast to her position on global warming (higher prices equal lower carbon emissions), and Number 4 says that oil companies should not be entitled to the same sorts of tax deductions afforded every other industry. I will let you all in on a little secret: Big Oil also deducts the salaries of their employees from their gross receipts, just like every other business. Maybe that 'subsidy' should be eliminated. Maybe their deductions for capital spending should be disallowed. More subsidies. But I digress.

But can anyone explain to me why championing action on global warming while also championing tapping the SPR is not blatantly contradictory? Anyone? Or why nobody in the Democratic Party seems to have the guts to speak out on this contradiction? Instead, Barack Obama - long opposed to tapping the SPR - has now embraced the party line and is calling for the same.

Actually, I think I know the answer to the contradiction. Proponents of tapping the SPR think that alternative fuels are going to rapidly scale up, displace petroleum with cheap ethanol, and the consumer won't have to suffer in order to bring fossil fuel consumption down. To that, I would point out that the Energy Information Administration - the source of Pelosi's claim that drilling in the OCS would only bring prices down by 2 cents a gallon - testified last year that they don't foresee that cellulosic ethanol is going to scale up to even a billion gallons by 2030.

The EIA also predicts that fossil fuels will continue to be the dominant source of our energy supply for decades to come. So, the very agency Pelosi references in her argument for tapping the SPR is telling us in no uncertain terms that alternative fuels aren't going to ride to the rescue as petroleum supplies deplete. With that in mind, I believe it is impossible to reconcile a position of tapping the SPR with a position that reducing our carbon emissions is a high priority. It's like saying "I propose that the nation needs to go on a diet. And by the way, I also propose that we increase the supply of donuts to make them more affordable."

I just wish a politician would have the guts to step forward and address this contradiction.

A very good summary of the critical points of the arguments. I think (hope) the most optimistic assessment of the situation is that both parties are intentionally hiding their true thoughts/plans. All we’ll hear until pre-election is appeasement without substance and probably with little or no concrete action. Post-election is another matter. I doubt it would happen in much less than a year time frame but I would expect to see serious (both logical and foolish) policies being enacted at that point. How serious/quickly will probably be a function of fuel price/availability. The political leadership may be swayed heavily by self interest, but they are not stupid (at least collectively). As soon as this election cycle ends they’ll be positioning themselves for the next. Upon that there can be little doubt.

I’m not a doomer by any means, but between the Pelosi/Obama’s positions and McCain’s repeated use of the foolish phrase “energy independence” it’s difficult to believe we’re close to serious constructive political discussions. Unfortunately, looking towards DC these days for "guts" is akin to searching for chastity in a whorehouse: even if you find it I doubt it would survive very long.

First off, Jimmy Carter proposed the right strategy 30 years ago and was ridiculed for asking for a heavy tax to limit consumption of oil.

Secondly, the stupid war in Iraq has drained our resources, our worldly clout, and the supply of oil. Left unchecked, Saddam could have raised the supply side of the equation.

Pelosi is a turd--she took democracy "off the table." We so need new leaders--in the mold of ...Jimmy Carter (and Paul Volker). The country has been dumbed down to the lowest common denominator--the big "W."

Politicians will say whatever they need to in order to get/remain elected. For example, from memory all candidates become in favour of ethanol when they visit the states that most benefit from it regardless of previous statements. They will say whatever they need to in order to secure their party's nomination and then become more "moderate" in order to win the floating voters.

I clearly remember Carter and thought reducing consumption was totally the obvious and right thing to do at the time since fossil fuels were finite (I didn't hear about PO or climate change then). Unfortunately over the years politicians did nothing and I forgot and was lulled into a false sense of "security" on the basis there couldn't be a problem if our leaders were ignoring it. Now over the last few years i have learned of PO, climate change, NPK, depletion of resources... and am pessimistic that politicians will do anything until the people demand action. Ggiven the voiciferous complaints over fuel prices that are still cheap i think it will be a long time coming.

There seems to be very little proper debate between the two parties, it's almost like name calling between kids with both sides trying to top the other's promises and show how they "feel" the people's problems and what they are going to do to "help" even if it is a crazy solution:-(

Bill O'Reilly exhibits a schizophrenia similar to Pelosis' He hates the oil companies, hopes that the high gasoline price will encourage conservation but wants lower gasoline prices for the poor working man.

As for helping the poor working folks I believe O'Reilly would be opposed to raising the minimum wage. What he really wants is lower prices for himself but not the ability of the poor to compete with him in the market place. There are much better ways to financially help the poor other than lowering fuel prices. To begin with they could give out more food stamps so they could use their cash as they see fit. Universal health care would be a big financial help to the working poor who make too much for medicaid but don't have any fringe benefits at their low wage jobs. There could be a vehicle swap program where the poor would junk there old gas guzzlers in exchange for a high mpg American made car. Doing these things means not having our troops spread around the world as well as higher taxes on the rich.

The reason that there is no contradiction is that the oil in the SPR is already out of the ground, and the oil in presently exploited fields will almost surely be burned. In so far as climate activists are not insisting on shutting currently productive oil wells, how the oil is arranged does not make a difference.

This is probably a mistake. Conceding that the reamining easy oil is going to be used seems like a pretty sure fire way to get tarsands into huge levels of production. We would do better to leave the oil in the soil as the Green Party presidential candidate says. It looks fairly certain that we will have to pay for current and some past oil use with carbon sequestration. But, I'm pretty sure that before we stop buring oil, the oil in the SPR will be used rather than pumped back into the ground.

The reason that there is no contradiction is that the oil in the SPR is already out of the ground, and the oil in presently exploited fields will almost surely be burned.

The contradiction is not the burning of the oil in the SPR. It is the idea that tapping the SPR will drop prices, which will then spur demand. How one can champion both this action and taking action on global warming is baffling.

Aah, I was thinking that you might be confused there. From the point of view of global warming, it does not matter if you burn the oil sooner, or in a few years. So, if you have given up on the idea of not burning the oil and have decided to focus on coal then it does not matter if oil consumption is encouraged or discouraged by price. There isn't that much more of it and it is all going to get burned anyway.

As I say, I think that this is a mistake. We have to pay for any fossil fuels we burn with sequestration at this point so our best solution is to stop using fossil fuels ASAP even if we close down EROEI=100 oil wells.

But, burning the easy oil fast or slow is not a big issue if you have already admitted you can't do anything about it all being burned.

To me, the largest error to avoid with respect to oil is encouraging oil alternatives like corn ethanol, tarsands and oil shale. Keeping oil prices low can help with this: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2008/06/oil-is-too-expensive.html
The sunsequent rapid run up in prices once we have transitioned off of oil should help to send new cars to the junk yard more than opening up these foolhardy alternatives. But, a worldwide effort to end oil use would be better.

"From the point of view of global warming, it does not matter if you burn the oil sooner, or in a few years."

I'd have to say that, as with Oil Production, it's about flowrates. I don't know how much the Atmosphere can or will 'clean' carbon out of the mix, but in this case, I'd say its really the flow of Co2 that reflects our emissions-habits, if you will. This tapping of the SPR would be both a signal and the actual tool for condoning more Driving and a BAU approach to our fuel usage. Pelosi, who probably just hasn't found a Cardigan that matches those sharp pantsuits, should nonetheless take a dangerous lesson from Amory Lovins and Carter and say that reducing consumption will BOTH reduce the amount of GHG we're putting into the air, and probably, with demand destruction, cut the cost of Gas.. while cutting your overall gas consumption and hence fuel bills right at the getgo. Hmm.. 3 solutions in one tactic.. but they'd rather die than really push that one. Then again, maybe Obama's going to surprise us and hang tough with his ridiculed but righteous 'Inflate your Tires' message.

It is not actually a flow rate problem if all the oil is to be burned. If we are going to take the flow rate to zero before all the oil is burned, then yes, you can cast it as a flow rate problem. But, the modeling that has been going on, where the finiteness of the oil resource is considered, does not look like BAU.

CO2 persists in the atmosphere for quite a while so it does not really matter if you spread out fossil fuel use to leave some for the future (Carter's idea way back) or if you blow right through it. The amount of warming depends on the total amount used. Right now, we've already used too much to avoid dangerous climate change if the most recent climate sensitivity estimates are accepted. So, we are already at the point where we must intervene to put carbon back in the ground. It thus make sense to leave as much carbon as we can in place in the ground. We won't have to clean that bit up. One could even consider the SPR as a form of sequestration and never burn it. But, I doubt we'll do that with the SPR.

We do need to cut our emissions. If we are not discussing cutting them to zero, we are wasting our breath. This is the reason that the SPR and its effect on price is unimportant. Price does not eliminate emissions, it only reduces them for the present and actually makes more carbon available in the long run because we'll go do stupid things like tarsands if the price is high.

I agree about cutting consumption by a significant amount right now to bring the price down. This also frees up funds for a speedier transition to zero oil use and zero emissions.

While Pelosi's position makes little sense given the conflicting goal of addressing global warming, all these crazy positions, including McCain's and Obama's, come back to the requirement that politicians must be perceived as doing something about gas prices, regardless of the consequences.

The fundamental problem is that Americans cannot handle the truth. Is this a case of the chicken and the egg? Can they not handle the truth because they are never told it? Or do politicians not tell the truth because the people cannot handle it?

A politician who tells the full truth will be a former office holder or a person who chooses to run for office without the intention of being elected.

To find the truth, the people will have to go elsewhere. While Pickens, for example, probably doesn't tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, those on the right will listen to him. When he says we can't drill our way out of this mess, conservatives, especially Texans, will sit up and listen.

While we're at it, why don't we just drain the whole damn SPR and allow unlimited drilling. After that fails, maybe we can start getting down to the business of proposing and implementing approaches that actually have some chance of doing some good.

Can they not handle the truth because they are never told it? Or do politicians not tell the truth because the people cannot handle it?

Both! The core problem for this nation is the pathetic education system and process. In spite of all the clamor about teaching critical thinking skills, I'm sorry to report that most of education is just job skills training or worse - busy work. Our education system has failed us horribly. Of course there is another, deeper chicken and egg problem here. Is our education system pathetic because that is the way society wants it to just focus on disciplinary detail memorization? Or is this focus the result of sheer scale phenomena - can't hire enough good teachers who understand how to teach critical thinking and why it is ultimately important.

A symptom I run into every quarter is the students' question: "What is it you are looking for?" Interpretation: what do you want me to memorize? They literally need a specification of what is right knowledge and what they should focus narrowly on for the test. Why? Because our schooling system systematically destroys their natural learning motivation with the test and grading systems that emphasizes reward for dutiful memorization (which is generally forgotten shortly after a course is completed).

People of average intelligence should be able to learn critical thinking skills sufficiently well that they are able to handle reasonably complex issues, especially when there is evidence to back up claims. But this isn't happening in this country. Our over-emphasis on professional skill sets and domain specific knowledge in disciplines has largely displaced critical thinking. And education has become a joke. And while we panic about Johnny and Judy not learning higher math (because everyone else in the world is) it isn't because this will increase their ability to think. No, it is because we are scared of losing our competitive edge in global markets, esp. high tech.

So it really is all about the money making. The human mind is now fully the slave of the economic system. And our kids really are 'just another brick in the wall.' [Pink Floyd]

So neither the people nor the politicians have the capacity to dig out the truth. The people need to hear that everything is going to be fine, if we just... The politicians need to tell people we will be just fine if we just... Circular causality. Feedback with amplification. The race to the bottom. You get the picture.

The level of education is directly correlated to the
amount of control the goverment has over its subjects.
When the gov feels a lower level of control...it severely restricts education.
When the gov senses higher control...it raises or allows a higher level of education.
George.Mobus I wont insult your level of intelligence
by listing ad-nauseum all the instances of evidence.
The goverments paranoia sometimes inadvertently
constrains higher education of the masses to its detriment on many several occassions.

(No paranoid goverment officials were harmed in the production of this statement)

Great post. Gets quite deep towards the root of all evil. Large corporations do not need critical thinkers, they need wage earning, mindlessly consuming, indebted up to their eyeballs, yes-people. And they have found their ways to have them... Sadly higher quality education is preserved for the chosen few of the elite.

The core problem for this nation is the pathetic education system and process. . . .

Because our schooling system systematically destroys their natural learning motivation with the test and grading systems that emphasizes reward for dutiful memorization (which is generally forgotten shortly after a course is completed). . . .

And education has become a joke. . . .

Given your position as a U Wash faculty member and because in that position one can either be part of the problem or part of the solution, I'm curious what advice you give to fix this problem. This problem falls into a faculty member's "sphere of influence" because faculty are ultimately responsible for determining all aspects of a university's curriculum - its content, delivery, sequence, requirements and so on - from the individual courses they teach to the department to the college curriculum committee to the university faculty senate, which approves all courses and degree requirements.

Any papers that you recommend? Most every discipline has one or more journals devoted exclusively to papers on improving teaching and learning, some of which are freely available on-line.

Likewise, any key books that you recommend reading? A set such as Ken Bain's "What the Best College Teachers Do", 2004, L Dee Fink's "Creating Significant Learning Experiences: An Integrated Approach to Designing College Courses", 2003, or Wiggins and McTighe's "Understanding by Design"?

Any innovative professors that you recommend paying attention to? Innovative faculty such as Eric Mazur, the Harvard "clicker" physics professor with his "Confessions of a converted lecturer", Richard Felder, NC State professor emeritus of chemical engineering awarded 1 of 5 Outstanding Engineering Educators of the Century, and Richard Hake, Indiana University Emeritus Professor of Physics who has written much about improving science teaching. People with good ideas on how to fix this problem are out there.

Accrediting groups are moving to using outcome assessment as the basis for accreditation rather than assessing program delivery. What can the student do as a consequence of the curriculum rather than what were they exposed to. Concerned stakeholders can provide input to accrediting groups, such as ABET, to correct these problems as well.

All that you point to is based on a premise I actually reject. That is that we 'teach' anything at all. People are natural learners and starting at a young age are explorers eager to understand their world. They don't start out in grade school thinking "I have to learn computer science so I can get a good job." You see I am railing against the very basis for the modern school system. Namely that we are supposed to teach disciplinary knowledge. The best practices approach to what are good teaching methods, etc. is still based on the premise that we need to produce students in the name of economic progress. Good teachers are as much defined by buying into that premise as by the results they get.

When I teach computer science I am indeed part of the problem. I signed a contract to teach the discipline as best I can. I do, however, rebel against the standard approach to teaching. Almost everything in the curriculum I 'guide' students through is now based on discovery of principles and application in projects. Come into one of my lectures and your as likely to find me at the back of the room with a number of students in the front acting out the roles of different parts of an operating system managing other students representing processes. They work in groups and have to write scripts for a play that is intended to show younger students how an OS works. In other words I try to turn them into teachers (of the guide type) as they learn how an OS works.

I also pre-warn my students each quarter that if they are married to the process of figuring out what I want so they can pass a test then they are likely to NOT like my classes (lets face it, they have been trained in this regimen for their entire lives so not a few of them prefer it - which is why some professors get good student evals because they play by the rules students have come to know and love!) I don't lecture so much as ask questions that force students to think and synthesize. I ask a lot of open ended questions that many students are uncomfortable with, at least initially. They just want to know the 'right' answer so they can regurgitate it later.

Even so, my CS classes are more like ordinary school than I like. I still have to play the role of power teacher. And I have to push them through subjects we claim they will need to know whether they like the subject or not. Though I will say I think I have more success getting students really interested in OS or architecture than many others.

Contrasted with that, my Global Honors classes are totally different. Since we are not there to go deep into a discipline, rather we are trying to integrate across several disciplines. I bring some core connection (systems science) guidelines but the students bring their various understandings and we, as a group, explore various topics - like education. I try to help them see obscured connections, e.g. between peak oil and climate change adaptation (where will the energy come from to do the work). What happens in these classes is that students bring questions after doing some individual and group investigations and what 'lecturing' I do is just trying to point them in the direction of finding answers via the systems approach.

Uniformly the students come out of those classes feeling like they've just discovered a whole new way to look at the world. We have two graduating classes now, and most of the students are going on to work in environmental areas, or education in underdeveloped countries. When they finish they relate to me as a helper or facilitator, but not someone who decides what they should know. (I should say I get by with this because systems science is a pretty good framework for learning new things, but it is also a natural way to look at things once it is made explicit in their minds, which is my job.)

I don't see ABET (especially) or any accrediting body wanting input of the kind I would offer! They are dedicated to the standard model but just want to act as a quality assurance process. I am advocating an entirely different purpose for education.

But what I am doing to start toward fixing the problem is, with colleagues, designing a new major in Systems Science. A BA in SS will formulate a qualitative basis for getting students to think systemically (we call it the 21st Century form of critical thinking). A BS will provide a quantitative basis for tackling real systems problems. Some of the basis and justifications for this approach can be found in a series of four articles here, here, here, and here.

Ultimately my feeling is that we need to re-envision the purpose of education, especially K-12, but also baccalaureate-level, as development of the person's understanding of their world - all parts of it. It doesn't mean they are going to become experts on everything there is. They will become effective generalists, better positioned to learn any specific knowledge they would need to become disciplinarian. But they would be in charge of their own education at an earlier stage in life. See "An Introduction to General Systems Thinking" by Gerald M. Weinberg, pp 43-47 for a discussion of the advantage of becoming a generalist first. Essentially, someone armed with this kind of education can easily become deeply disciplinary in just about any knowledge-based field they would like to pursue.

This probably isn't what you expected based on my reading of your comment. But I did try to answer all of your concerns.

George - because I read your website, particularly your CV, first your response is closer to what I expected than you might think. Having been at Western, you likely crossed paths with Pinkie Nelson who has similar thoughts on re-visioning K-14 education. I'd still appreciate any pointers to resources on how to do a better job. On the other hand, I suspect you may have dismissed Fink and Bain out of hand. I read Weinberg a while back so I'll need to go back to read those pages. I particularly applaud your efforts in the area of developing better energy flow modeling and I presume you've looked at Odum's work. By the way, I expect we crossed paths as undergrads.

But can anyone explain to me why championing action on global warming while also championing tapping the SPR is not blatantly contradictory? Anyone? Or why nobody in the Democratic Party seems to have the guts to speak out on this contradiction?

Tactics and Strategy are two different things. The police have the strategy of protecting the lives of the citizens. Would you call them hypocritical if they shoot a man to death who is firing an assault rifle on a crowd of people?

Politicians must work inside public perception. That is the game board. You don't like that game board? Then you must change public perception.

The public believes what the oil companies are saying (they would not lie before congress would they?). Limitless supplies of non-conventional oil. Prices due to oil speculators. So why not tap the SPR? Why not wipe out all the long positions? Why not refill the SPR later with limitless unconventional oil?

If price is a momentary pain, why not ease it while planning the transition to a low carbon economy via non-market mechanisms? California leads the nation in efficiency and it did it without using the market driven price lever.

California leads the nation in efficiency and it did it without using the market driven price lever.

Do you mean electrical efficiency? We have some of the highest utility rates in the country outside of New England. http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table5_6_a.html I'd call that a market driven price lever. We also had the hard lesson of rolling blackouts, and not only during the 2000-2001 power crisis. So we've had both rationing by supply and rationing by price.

Yes, electrical efficiency. Europe has the highest gasoline prices, but the market does not set those prices, the government taxes are what boosted the prices. California has many programs to reduce energy use paid for by raising the price. That would not happen without regulation, so I refer to it as non-market.

I think you have it backward. We do have efficiency programs like grants to subsidize CFLs and buy back 2nd refrigerators, but that's a drop in the bucket compared to the high cost of gas fired electricity. We use gas for a whopping 44% of our generated electricity. Installed capacity is even higher because gas power plants are for peaking.

Tactics and Strategy are two different things. The police have the strategy of protecting the lives of the citizens. Would you call them hypocritical if they shoot a man to death who is firing an assault rifle on a crowd of people?

Of course that's a completely faulty analogy. A better analogy would be someone opposed to the death penalty on moral grounds who fires an assault rifle into a crowd of people.

Tactics and Strategy are two different things. The police have the strategy of protecting the lives of the citizens. Would you call them hypocritical if they shoot a man to death who is firing an assault rifle on a crowd of people?

And Goals are something else again. The police have a GOAL of protecting the lives of the citizens. They use strategies such as public awareness campaigns, visible patrols, beat walking, being armed, and so on, to achieve their goals. When they come upon a specific situation they use tactics such as dispersing a crowd, directing traffic, or restraining or shooting a violent person.

A goal is an end, a strategy is a path to that end, and a tactic is a step along that path.
--
JimFive

The tapping of the SPR is more in line with Caesar and returning armies throwing out goodies to the crowds. It's beyond pandering. More along the lines of "let them eat cake". The thin crust of american society that makes up the political class are not touched by our energy situation. They are only interested in exploiting whatever they can to maximize their own return. EROI on a personal level. Our political party represents business only. Textbook fascism.

Every "solution" from the powers that be will make matters worse. Nothing short of a major paradigm shift will suffice and by definition the "powers that be" cannot even consider real solutions because that would negate their power base.

Much of the structure we built during our growth phase is now counterproductive and must be torn down. As long as it stays in place - Pelosi being an example - the longer and farther we go in the wrong direction. Chaos and destruction are necessary for rebirth. Gaia dances with Shiva.

I think there is some intuitive understanding of that. Cindy Sheehan is on the ballot opposing Pelosi. The Democrats have funded (probably via Schumer) a long legal battle to keep a similar independent off the Senate ballot in Maine - an independent that supports impeachment, single payer health care, out now, cuts to military, yadda yadda - all of which the Democrat does not support. All of which a low energy future would require. We need a Collapse party - like Dmitry Orlov discusses - and it is not the Democrats; they are old and in the way.

Each time I follow a politics thread here, I've thought about the bumper sticker "Don't wait for our leaders- to do the right thing."

I want us to reform politics in this country, but I don't even think it can happen anywhere near the ballot box now. We have to force them to follow us, while we put our energy into the movements that need to form, instead of banging our heads against either of the Parties.

I just heard Nader speaking on Cspan the other night, and while his message is essentially the same as in '04 and '00, it is no less salient. to whit; The Parties listen to Corporate Interests. Period. They create soundbites to placate their respective bases and rally the 'credulous troops', but every action they will undertake will be aimed at the benefits designed by the corporations and major lobbying concerns.. and we're not them.

I think we need to oppose and IGNORE the network debates and find new forums for valid debates where they have to weigh in against third and fourth parties, etc,.. Libertarian, Green, 'Independent' whatever..

My Election-day bumpersticker needs to go back on the car now.. it has a big, Red Computer Eye in the middle and says, 'HAL.. did you get my vote? HAL?'

I agree with the commentor above who uses the words "textbook fascism". That nails the essentials. The proper alternate path is the one the citizens of several European countries use, particularly France. Workers go into "riot and anarchy" mode and bust up some furniture, often randomly, just often enough to keep the politicians sufficiently scared of them to actually pay attention to their collective wishes. Hence French workers looking absolutely amazed at N. American workers terms and conditions.

Incidentally, has anyone else seen this presentation from July 15, 2008http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAPP7o6uG8Y
"Steven Koonin, the chief scientist for BP and former provost of CalTech, describes the energy challenges facing the world and suggests the development of advanced biofuels and a new generation of nuclear power as alternatives to fossil fuels."
More here, including PDF from presentation:http://clients.mediaondemand.net/bp/

Mr. Koonin follows idea that there's plenty of fossil fuels left, conventional and otherwise, and the argument we'll (eventually) have peak oil by above ground limitation. I don't think he offered any clear defense how we can maintain current flow rates of oil past the peak production of conventional oil. Anyway, still worth watching as a good comprehensive summary of "the other side", including considerations of carbon taxes and their affect on which fuels we "choose".

He showed one graph of fuel costs with progressively higher carbon taxes, showing $20/ton as a standard crossing point, the lower limit that is needed to make any difference at all in fuel choices. He also said something quite surprising, that a $20/ton carbon tax would only add about $0.30/gallon for gasoline. Something like that, and surprising since it's clear that price increase would appear to have no affect at all on curbing consumption.

She's standing on a cliff, dreaming of wonderful things she could do, playing a chess game of contradictory demands, and so the "inconvenient truth" of our limited real choices must be too much to bear except through denial. Politicians are motivated by power, a belief in solutions. How do they admit there are no acceptable solutions?

California Attorney General Jerry Brown was published today in the Op-Ed section of the Wall Street Journal with an article explaining the need for the United States to reduce foreign energy dependence. In a 800-word article, Jerry Brown explains his answer to the question of "what would you do with $10 billion to help improve the status of the world?"http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121841566182528579.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

In his op/ed, Brown implies that the US's current $1+ Trillion cost for energy of all types is "perhaps the greatest transfer of wealth from one people to another in all human history," that it is all transferred, which is a lie. Second, the point-at-issue, as noted by a WSJ Header, is "How would you spend $10 billion of American resources (either directly or through regulation) over the next four years to help improve the state of the world?", for which Brown never offers us any thesis statement, until, finally, at the end of his fourth paragraph he says: "America must take the lead in dealing with global energy and climate challenges, and at the same time vastly strengthen its own economy and security." He then goes on with examples of how he would spend this $10 Billion in the USA to improve the world's status.

As for the $10 Billion, I would put it to use through microloans for ecologically beneficial locally managed projects worldwide that focus almost exclusively on pollution (including carbon) abatement.

My question and this applies (I think) equally well to other high level politicians in the rest of the world when it comes to energy decisions:

Are these politicians:

1) Using the erroneous data and as such do not see the potential gravity of the situation, therefor allowing themselves to get lost in political logrolling and popularity contents of minor importance

OR

2) Fully aware of the probability of the situation getting very serious and their current proposals having minuscule effect, and as such acting as if nothing is wrong, but perhaps doing some other preparations behind the scenes?

OR

something else 3) What exactly?

So are the proposals due to ignorance, smoke-screening or due something else completely?

I think the answer to your question is mostly number 1. I've been reading the Oil Drum for the past six months, and I'm starting to realize how much I do *not* know about the economics and production of oil. The average person doesn't even know how much that they don't know. Forget about the Hubbert Curve, or the cost of extracting energy, it's all due to "speculators", "currency fluctuations", or getting gouged by Big Oil. And I doubt if *any* of our legislators -- European or North American -- are particularly well-informed, either. Most of their information comes from lobbiests and policy experts with axes to grind (and I'm afraid the oil companies are being tremendously short-sighted, so I don't think their lobby is giving our politicians accurate information). Even if a politician is well-informed, as a politician you have still have work within the belief framework of your constituency -- or in a democracy you get voted out, losing to a yahoo who says he has a quick fix.

1. On SPR--it is certainly more likely that opening the SPR will bring down prices than drilling offshore 10 years in the future.
The GOP Congressmen are claiming THEY brought down oil prices by just talking about drilling oil in a few million acres 10 years from now.

A better proposal is to fill the SPR with much cheaper heavy oil, which most US refineries can process.

Why Bush continued to fill the SPR with +$100 oil is a mystery unless you subscribe to the outlandish notion that the GOP is in Big Oil's pocket.

2. Another 'mystery' is why Big Oil isn't drilling on leases in GOM, which amount to 75% of the likely offshore sites per EIA unless you realize
that there's is probably nothing in them. Still more 'reserves' is better for oil company bottom lines.

3. I think #3--legislation punishing excessive speculation, is why oil prices have been dropping. Or does anyone think that the oil supply gap has been 'closed'(in 2 months)?

4. Big Oil hasn't been investing and is buying up stock, why reward that?
Oil has been pouring into their coffers for 4 years and they keep shrinking
production. Better windfall, 'em and give the money to consumers to offset the price or better still to buy hybrid cars.

5. Using natural gas to make ethanol actually makes MORE sense than for NG cars.

Ethanol can be used in cars now up to 15% ethanol without alteration and with $1000 worth of alterations up to 85% using E85.

If you add up ALL farm fossil fuel expenditures (mainly fertilizer) at 18875 btu per gal. and ALL ethanol processing fossil fuel expenditures at 47116 btu per gal. you end up with 65991 btu per gal. Consider all these expenditures to be natural gas and you end up with 66 scf of natural gas per gallon of ethanol or 3 pounds of natural gas per gallon.

The amount of miles per tank is as bad as pure ethanol--170 miles in the Honda GSX versus ~+210 miles in an E85 vehicle.

On the other hand CNG is cheap $2.5 per GGE. But that could change.

The only positive is that natural gas NOW 'appears' to be abundant(infinite?). Ironically, Pickens was advising only a couple years ago that massive LNG terminals would be required due to peaking North American NG supplies per David Hughes and others.

Since you SAVE natural gas by producing ethanol, it makes no sense to run off building a vast NG infrastructure for CNG cars people don't want or need.

1. On SPR--it is certainly more likely that opening the SPR will bring down prices than drilling offshore 10 years in the future.

Then you missed the entire point, which wasn't whether it would bring prices down. The point was to question how one can be so adamant about bringing prices down - which will surely spur demand - and be an outspoken advocate for taking action on global warming. The two positions don't mesh.

85% increase in spending by Big Oil on E&P in 5 years. Feel free to verify that number. I have pointed out many times when I was with COP that we dramatically increased our spending on projects.

Using natural gas to make ethanol actually makes MORE sense than for NG cars.

Would you believe that you are again misinformed? Not only have you missed out on the various combustion inefficiencies along the way, but you have also failed to note that burning natural gas directly doesn't consume topsoil, dump fertilizer in the Mississippi, nor drive up evaporative emissions. Natural gas is a far cleaner fuel than ethanol, especially when you consider the entire life cycle. Of course India and Brazil already figured this out. They aren't trying to 'stretch' their natural gas by converting it to ethanol.

If you accept Hansen's argument that coal is the real carbon criminal and there just isn't enough oil left to make that much difference to the climate then Pelosi's stance may make sense. It is stretching the logic pretty far to assume a politician is that energy smart.

The first thing we need to do is rename the SPR into the TPR. Once it's tactical instead of strategic, Congress can use it for all sorts of whims without this pesky notion that it should be preserved for a future national crisis getting in the way. After all, what could be worse than not getting re-elected?

I've been doing some digging lately into who is advising the candidates on technically-relevant policy issues. McCain's people - forget about it. But here is what I find as I dig more into Obama's people. And, as it turns out, some threads have led me into other environmental policy groups. Guess what educational background is most represented among so-called science advisers and policy developers?

If you guessed scientists you'd be way off. It appears to be (by my anecdotal evidence) lawyers form the largest contingent of advisers and policy developers. Now, you might think that makes sense since policies have to be politically tested. But consider this. There are on-the-ground technical facts behind these issues, like peak oil, like global climate change, like declining water supplies, like food production, etc. You would think that scientists who study these phenomena, or engineers who have to come up with solutions would play a stronger role in advice and policy construction. In fact, as one lawyer-trained science adviser to a prominent West Coast governor (years ago) once told me, "... we just ask the scientists for details when we think we need to. They generally get in the way of real policy work." Or something to that effect (the occasion was when the then governor took a tour of a solar energy project I was working on. Incidentally, the adviser did all the talking to the governor and got most of his facts wrong!)

Where do a lot of advisers get their 'scientific' information when tackling policy development? I suspect (know of a few cases personally) they get most of it from the popular media! They read something like a science-based story in the NYT and voila, they have their facts. I have several liberal, politically active, friends who are forever e-mailing me links to media stories about that next great innovation in solar energy. I've given up trying to explain the process of taking a newly discovered phenomenon on a lab bench to a fully deployed, scaled technology. They have no real-life experience but I have to give them credit for enthusiasm.

Most of the scientists I know are working stiffs. They do science. They have little interest in policy development because they (rightly) perceive that it is the domain of those who would like to believe they know enough and never do. The fundamental problem that I see with this arrangement is that lawyers are trained to win arguments almost regardless of any underlying facts. To many lawyers it is about winning cases, and careers hinge on doing so. It is their cultural milieu. Couple that with the idea that lawyers rarely have the scientific or engineering (except in the field of, say, patent law) higher education/experience, have not learned the very different method of thinking and reasoning, and you have a prescription for disaster.

Ideally scientists would be more integrated into policy development roles than just as advisers to the advisers. But unfortunately there seems to be a latent disrespect of each group for the other that may be hard to overcome. Given that more and more issues have a scientific and/or engineering component to them it seems like a fundamental flaw to leave policy to the politicians and their current crop of policy advisers (if my cursory exploration proves to be correct).

I would suggest (unless you've already come across him) as late holiday reading "Voltaires B_astards", or its' slimmer successor "The Unconscious Civilisation" by John Ralston Saul for a dissection of the triumph of Reason over moral sense, including numerous examples of the balkanisation and neutering of specialist knowledge by a sophisticated but morally blank cadre. Has saved me much heartache having an understanding of how and why the lunatics are running the asylum.

She'll give you a convaluded short term, long term problem/answer, and at the end of it you'll be trying to wake up and remember the question.

I saw her on CSPAN and she gave the longest, most involved answers to questions I've ever heard from any politician. Many answers included a trip down early US history with documents like the Magna Carta. This is why the Dems fail to connect with the masses as well as the Repubs, because the latter have discovered how to dummy down answers to one liners, sometimes one word or phrase. Think about where slippery slope, or fuzzy math came from. They are masters at connecting with the lesser educated, easily led group.

When the Dems answer a question like yours this way, you'll know they are trying to connect with the masses: "Carbon emmissions are a slippery slope of fuzzy science that our opponents use to sell out the American people. What we're talking about here is cheaper oil for the people. That's my kind of America!"

I have lived most of my life within 30 miles of San Francisco and find Pelosi's comment not unusual given the Fru-Fru "leadership" that the daft citizens of San Francisco have elected over the years.

Rest assured that Pelosi, my current congressperson, and my two past congresspersons, are completely detached from the petroleum crises. They don't get "it" and will not get "it" until, as with December 8, 1941, we awaken -- literally and figuratively -- to a new day. My biggest concern is what they decide that we, as a nation, must do beginning on December 8.

Have you looked at what your city government is doing? Here is a whole series of presentations on peak oil including one today that talks about local currencies. http://sfpeakoiltownhall.eventbrite.com/

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed the legislation for a peak oil task force two years ago...pretty forward thinking, for sure.

At the same time, although I can't speak for the people here who did the leg work of getting the legislation passed, I can speak for myself and repeat what our Chair said during today's public meeting: there is no guarantee that our electeds will make the hard decisions once they receive the report.

Reports are one thing; specific, concrete actions are quite another.

We ask for leadership from our politicians but, in my experience, they must be supported by the public or when they stick their neck out too far, it's the competing politicians and the public who will give them a hard time.

There simply is no substitute for an informed and engaged public to support the (admittedly all-too-rare) courageous and forward-thinking politicians. From time to time a politician can bring people along with them, but it's hard work and one must picks one's battles.

"My biggest concern is what they decide that we, as a nation, must do beginning on December 8."

Didn't Bush recommend go shopping after 9/11? Just think of what he could have recommended/done and where we would be now. for example, no sales of new gas guzzlers, sensible CAFE limits not corrupted by the big car makers.....

Perhaps Pelosi and Obama may think that it's clever to take the easy populist line, if it could, as a side effect, act as a smokescreen for pre-empting further foolishness in the Middle East.

As an observer on a distant continent (but, alas, the same planet) I wish that they would have the guts and integrity to stop this nonsense and spell things out with less spurious cleverness and a great deal more honesty.

imo, if the iraq war was being paid for with real hard earned tax dollars instead of debt for our children and grandchildren it wouldnt be so popular or strategic.

and when the treasury cant borrow anymore money, it is possible the politicians will borrow the spr out of existance just like the social security trust fund. not debt, not savings just wasted on the search for wmd's.

Robert Rapier:Excellent question you posed and also
great feign at surprise it wasnt answered.Nancy Pelosi
(like every politician)has been vetted or wouldnt be
in a position of power.
Waiting for a savior to rise from the streets of DC
has got to be up there with pigs flying.The only thing
more frightening then P.O. is the level of corruption
and deceit of American political leaders.
Might as well of asked when egalitarian measures would
be instituted to save society.
Robert,you knew before asking, the question wouldnt be
addressed...Why would you poke the beast?
Iam starting too like you.

Abandon geological CCS, IMO is never going to happen, instead consider vertical farms growing biomass from the CO2 produced from the power plant with an aim that the biomass be gasified and fed back into the power plant with the char used to rebuild soil quality. Or algae to bio diesel if it ever happens.

Robert, you and I obviously share a pet peeve. Only, since the fate of the Earth is in the balance it is not a trite issue.

I have had many similar experiences to yours. On a local level, for example, we have strong policy on climate change. In my neighboring county a non-profit group led by a climate change activist named Ann Hancock got every single elected politician in the county, that's nine city councils and one county council, to agree to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The local paper, the Santa Rosa Press Democrat, has applauded the "greening" of Sonoma County. The local tourism board loves to promote tourism because of the "clean environment."

But guess where people put their public money? Building more roads, widening freeways, repaving old roads, etc. The same is true in my county, where public policy says reduce emissions but public spending tends to increase them.

Now to the national level. I had a long private meeting with my local congressman, Mike Thompson, about climate change. Mike expressed true anxiety over climate change. Said if we don't solve this nothing else matters. He said he has sat with other scientists and believe policy discussions are way too conservative, that much more agressive measures need to happen...but...he also believes he is ahead of the curve and isn't the kind of politician to get out in front of an issue, even one this grave! I implored him to be a leader, to educate with his position and not just follow safe public opinion.

I saw him sometime later at a Rotary Club meeting. After a lot of talk about Iraq, somebody asked him about climate change, he expressed his concern and mentioned some bills he is cosponsoring. I then got a comment in: "American's are finally driving less because of higher fuel prices. I am worried that the Democratic Party is trying to have it both ways: lower fuel prices but tackle climate change. This is contradictory. If the only thing keeping emissions from growing are high prices and we need to keep them high but use our revenue wisely to fund transportation options that don't rely on fossil fuels."

I haven't seen this yet. In a recent op ed published in my local paper, the Willits News, he basically laid out what seems to be the Democratic Party line. All the contradictions you revealed are there. I will see him next week at a local "sustainability" fair called SolFest where he will speak on climate change and I will lead a panel discussion afterwards. I am going to call him on this and hope others in the crowd do so as well.

Haven't I heard at this site that the Heavy Sour produces a good bit less of the light motor fuels, and so is essentially worth less than the light sweet to begin with, and leaves us with more dregs to bury or contend with after refining? I don't remember the conversion amounts, but did I get this point wrong?

Additionally, in terms of Acute and Chronic, I would see the fuel in the SPR as an extremely valuable tool for powering some of the transition out of this oil economy, since the tools and ICE's and knowhow are still here in abundance, and so I'd oppose downgrading or reducing that supply.

Wikipedia treats the heavy sour crude as less valuable that light sweet crude in its discussion of SPR. It estimates the heavy sour costs $15 more to process at the refinery. I'm not an expert. I'm just passing on an answer that, to me, seems plausible.

The contradiction described arises because Pelosi's primary job as a politician is to make sure that the economy stays 'healthy', which is a coded way of saying that the stock market needs to keep on rising. If there is a conflict between a worsening recession and reducing carbon emissions I think we all know which priority will carry the day.

Personally I like the idea of taxing gasoline use in excess of a specified allowance per person. Ration coupons would be issued which would allow the receiver to buy gasoline at the going market rate. Any gasoline purchased without such a coupon would be heavily taxed. Such a scheme would help keep demand low without regressively punishing poor people with high fuel costs. The taxes could be used for funding public transportation, rail expansion, etc. You can at least sell this idea as a way of creating new infrastructure as opposed to the merely negative goal of reducing carbon emissions.

Taxes on gasoline will need to get a LOT higher than present US to have any significant effect. See Canada, which already has some heavy taxes ($4.75 / gal gas) but STILL has higher per capita consumption than USA.

Can anyone say why gasoline consumption is so high per capita in Canada? As far as I know, the major cities have good public transit that is actually used by people (myself included when I lived in Toronto, the subway was great).

My sense is it's the diesel used in mining and logging operations that increase the per capita rates.

Obviously, it’s not a strong enough provision, as they haven’t used it, and they haven’t lost it.

oil companies should not be entitled to the same sorts of tax deductions afforded every other industry

EVERY other industry? You are misinformed. Big Oil receives tax free and low interest construction bonds, 100% subsidized R&D programs, Government-assumed legal risk of exploration and capital investments, subsidized loan rates, income tax subsidies, sales tax subsidies, The SPR itself is a subsidy – a taxpayer financed managed bank of a resource – helping keep it more scarce and helping to keep society more dependent, highway building is, in the end, a subsidy – as it has made us dependent, lax pollution regulations and contamination clean up requirements, and far cheaper royalties than any other nation. Oh, and then there’s the latest trillion dollar war we all just paid for so Big Oil could get in on the development of Iraq’s infrastructure.

But can anyone explain to me why championing action on global warming while also championing tapping the SPR is not blatantly contradictory? Anyone?

Opposing Chinese-style single child laws could also be seen as blatantly contradictory to global warming action. How many children do you have Robert? The fact is, the Democrats have long been one of the only voices for lower income people in America too. High gas prices are affecting the poor disproportionally and there are people that are truly suffering. Do you also oppose subsidizing the upcoming oil heating bills for those on the east coast and letting those kids freeze?

The plain fact is, if not for GOP opposition, it would be very likely that there would have been much higher CAFÉ standards adopted years ago, much more renewable energy already developed, more trains, and less pollution.

I’m tentatively a Democrat. If they ever again obtain a strong majority in both houses and fail on the above, I’ll be the first one to jump ship. But right now, they are the only realistic shot we have. If tossing out a few nonsense ideas prevent them from losing the slim majority they are clinging to (or to electing McInsane) I really could care less - that's politics. You're not naive enough to believe in a puritanical always-truthful-politico that only speaks to the educated class (a huge minority btw)? No. If you want to win in America, you have to appease Joe Sixpack. Period.

"If they ever again obtain a strong majority in both houses and fail on the above, I’ll be the first one to jump ship."

I'd say they've already shown their spinelessness clearly enough that they need to be sent some very stern warnings about how tentative the support for them really is. I would be a Dem, probably, but when they removed people from the Convention into the Free-Speech Cells in Boston for having 'Peace' Signs in '04, I concluded that my place was probably well outside their safe little system.

Strengthen the Third Parties and let the Majors know they haven't got anything like a free ride any more. Forget the messages to the mythical Joe Sixpack, and think about the messages that we need to send to Senators Brandywine and Bourbon.

If you want to win in America, you have to appease Joe Sixpack. Period.

I dislike the use of the patronizing term 'Joe Sixpack'. When I was in college I worked during the summer in the shipping department of a paintbrush factory. The people I worked with were not highly educated, but they were neither stupid nor politically naive. I currently ride the bus system in San Jose on a regular basis, and a while back I overheard a conversation between two men who were obviously not rich successful yuppies. They were speaking with some degree of resentment about the influx of illegal immigrants with whom they were competing for jobs. The tone of the conversation was not particularly racist; They were just worried about the future. One of them made that comment that he thought that the day was coming when the only the rich and the super-rich would be reasonbly well off, while everyone else was just just scratching and clawing to get by. In my opinion this man's asessment of our economic situation was far more accurate that of many highly educated people who believe that the technology fairy is going to come along and pull our fat out of the fire.

The fundamental problem is that if high energy prices create a long term recession, then people in the lower part of the income distribution will suffer the most. This is a matter of elementary economics described by Adam Smith in Wealth of Nations: If the economy stagnates then the wages of common laborers descends to subsistence level and if the the economy declines then people go hungry. The only way to alleviate this problem is to redistribute income in one fashion or another. In our economic and social milieu it not possible either to tell the low income part of your constituency that you are going to hang them out to dry, or to tell the higher income part of your constituency that you are going take money away from them.

The avoidance of these two options by politicians is not pandering to ignorant low income workers. The people with low income are not ignorant. They know perfectly well that they will be the hardest hit in a recession, and that the social safety net protecting them in such a situation is wholly inadequate. This is why I like the idea of taxing excessive use of gasoline and using it to fund public transportation. Such a scheme effectively transfers income from the rich the poor without calling it by that name. Futhermore anybody can use public tranportation. It is not like giving poor people money to pay their heating bills. It creates a perament public good which anyone can utilize.

Uh, no. I am afraid you are. You are repeating the sort of misinformation that causes these myths to persist. If you would post some documentation behind your charges, I would be happy to address them. My guess is that you (or your source) has taken some isolated cases and some unusual circumstances and extrapolated to 'these are the subsidies Big Oil gets.' I used to work in R&D for Big Oil. 100% subsidized R&D programs? Where do people come up with such nonsense? Our R&D budget came from sales of oil and gasoline.

The primary 'subsidy' under consideration here is the manufacturers tax credit. This was passed several years ago, and is available to all manufacturers. In the case of oil companies only, it is called a 'Big Oil subsidy.' There have been several attempts to modify the language such that it reads 'manufacturers (excluding oil companies).'

And as far as the war being for the benefit of Big Oil - I have addressed this numerous times. I don't know a single person within Big Oil - and I know that none of the CEOs are on record - as supporting going into Iraq to secure supplies. That was done by Bush and company with the intent of keeping the cheap oil flowing to the American consumer. Of course things didn't work out that way, but it wasn't Big Oil that pushed for this.

Do you also oppose subsidizing the upcoming oil heating bills for those on the east coast and letting those kids freeze?

I am pretty torn on this two part question. I do oppose subsidizing heating bills, because it leads to higher consumption of a finite resource. In other words, it just causes us to delay tough choices, and we run out quicker. That results in a subsidy that must spiral much higher in order to buy the same amount of heating. On the other hand - I do oppose letting kids freeze to death. Fortunately, it doesn't have to be one or the other. We can put policies in place that encourage people to adopt different arrangements. Encouraging more of the same is not the answer.The plain fact is, if not for GOP opposition, it would be very likely that there would have been much higher CAFÉ standards adopted years ago, much more renewable energy already developed, more trains, and less pollution.

The biggest and most consistent obstacle to higher CAFE standards has been Michigan Congressman John Dingell, a Democrat who is trying to protect Michigan's auto industry.

The biggest and most consistent obstacle to higher CAFE standards has been Michigan Congressman John Dingell, a Democrat who is trying to protect Michigan's auto industry.

This is false. Senate Democrats voted in favor of raising CAFE 2:1 over Republicans. 23 Republican senators opposed it vs. 4 Democrats. The ratio was even higher in the house. To suggest that Rep. Dingell has been the BIGGEST, most consistent obstacle to higher CAFE is wrong. It's clearly the GOP. Is this just more misinformed views or is this partisanship bias eeking through in your post?

Uh, no. I am afraid you are. You are repeating the sort of misinformation that causes these myths to persist

Or, should I just take a blogger's (with an apparent ax to grind with Democrats) word for it? Because he happened to once work for an oil company? "Uh no", I'm afraid I'll go with the former, unless informed otherwise by more compelling information.

To suggest that Rep. Dingell has been the BIGGEST, most consistent obstacle to higher CAFE is wrong.

Dingell is the most outspoken critic of CAFE standards. Has been for years. Failure to recognize that suggests a partisan blind spot on your part.

Well, who should I believe?

What you could do is try to present your own arguments, instead of appealing to authority. Take your first source, for instance. It is from 1995, when oil companies were far less profitable. They may have had a much lower income tax rate then. Some were going bankrupt. So the source is ridiculously dated. Oil companies are now paying upwards of $100 billion annually in taxes, which has been sharply higher in recent years. So instead of 'believing someone', why not investigate and try to find out for yourself?

Or, should I just take a blogger's (with an apparent ax to grind with Democrats) word for it?

Do you know who thinks I have an axe to grind with the Democrats? Partisan Democrats. Partisan Republicans accuse me of having an axe to grind with Republicans. I was just accused of that on my blog last week, and I have been frequently accused of being a liberal Democrat. Regardless of what I am (and I certainly don't have an axe to grind against the Democrats - but they are very naieve about energy) I am an equal opportunity critic.

I don't know a single person within Big Oil - and I know that none of the CEOs are on record - as supporting going into Iraq to secure supplies

Do the President, Vice-President, and the current Secretary of State (all ex Big Oil) count? Who attended Cheney's "secret" energy meetings - you know the ones that just coincidentally happened just before the administration cooked the books and lied the country into war? Who was it who said the Iraq war was "largely over oil"? Who received no-bid contracts? Who's making $ developing Iraq's oil industry?

Of course Robert....the Oil companies clearly opposed the Iraq war. Supporting it would be "nonsense".

The U.S. Dept. of Energy has a $100 million dollar R&D program called The Oil Technology Research and Development Program I'm I to believe this isn't what it is?

But you just said that Big Oil has "100% subsidized R&D programs." So now a program being run by the DOE amounts to Big Oil's "100% subsidized R&D programs?" That's over the top, man. Big Oil has enormous R&D budgets. A program in the DOEO does not amount to their research programs. They are also not provided preferential access to the DOEs experiments.

Do the President, Vice-President, and the current Secretary of State (all ex Big Oil) count?

What exactly is "Big Oil" in your mind? Bush has never been Big Oil. Cheney was in oil field services.

Who was it who said the Iraq war was "largely over oil"?

You may be referring to me, because I have said that myself. But "largely over oil" doesn't mean the same as "largely for Big Oil." The war was aimed - in my opinion - at securing oil supplies for the American consumer. Things haven't quite worked out like that. However, you seem to be one of these people who are unable to tell the difference. These are the sorts of people who think Big Oil should be billed for the war, despite no evidence that Big Oil favored going to war. Personally, I think the bill for the war should be sent to only the people who voted for Bush. (Note: I wouldn't get a bill).

Who's making $ developing Iraq's oil industry?

Why don't you tell me? Give some examples. From what I have seen, the vast majority of the companies doing so are not American.

Of course Robert....the Oil companies clearly opposed the Iraq war.

You need get it through your head that 'oil companies' as an entity can neither support or oppose a war. But their leadership can be on the record one way or another. Given your inability to post any actual evidence supporting your contentions, I conclude you are content to smear instead of debate facts. After all, you made a lot of accusations and innuendos in that first post. So far, you haven't supported them.

A question in re. Pelosi's 1st point: use the strategic petroleum reserve (SPR):

The SPR contains approx. 700 million barrels of oil. Can someone tell me how much that would increase the atmospheric concentration of CO2 if that were all burned in the space of a few years? It seems to me it might not make much of a difference to the eventual state of the global warming problem.

I know that she is not suggesting that it all be used, all at once. But that is the outer limit to how much bad would come of using some of it. Or am I missing something?

If the USA is using 20mb a day, then that would seem to be the equiv of some 50 days of all US petroleum emissions.

To me, Robert's point makes sense in that this 'solution' simply points us in the wrong direction. (If you want us to reduce our emissions) I really like the Donut comparison, makes it easy to contextualize.

It's like saying "I propose that the nation needs to go on a diet. And by the way, I also propose that we increase the supply of donuts to make them more affordable."

The maximum draw down rate of SPR is published in Wikipedia. It is 4mb/day. Reserve would last 175 days at max draw down.

But that's not what I think is interesting. I want some idea as to how much good would be accomplished by saving it vs squandering it. I agree that it appears to be a commitment to denial if we use it, but it would be gone in half a year if we used it at max drawdown. Even the infamous Joe Sixpack might realize when it is gone that it was just a little while ago that there was a big hue and cry about whether to use it or not. And that it was a dumb idea to use it up with so little gain. Getting rid of it might be good politics. So, how bad would getting rid of it be for global warming?

My WAG is that the jump of CO2 concentration would be less that the amplitude of the normal annual cycle of CO2 on the Keeling curve. I'd like to have a better number than WAG.

Politics is the art of compromise. Sometimes even compromise about confronting elementary logic makes political 'sense'.

To me, Robert's point makes sense in that this 'solution' simply points us in the wrong direction. (If you want us to reduce our emissions) I really like the Donut comparison, makes it easy to contextualize.

Solution to what? The world has not suddenly lost millions of barrels of oil
(though the situation in Georgia is very bad). The problem is that americans can't afford gas now, not in 30 or 20 or 8 years(ANWR).

Let Pelosi sell 10% off at current prices and turn the money over to the real owners of the SPR, average american taxpayers/consumers, the proverbial golden goose of the world's largest economy.

Under Bushco, this is 'bird' is now highly endangered.

I think with government help consumers will learn the lesson of the past 3 years.

A starvation diet in this circumstance would only be recommended by a fool.

The problem is that americans can't afford gas now, not in 30 or 20 or 8 years(ANWR).

Not true. Demand is only down 5% or so, so they can certainly afford gas. They are just being more careful about driving to the Sonic across town to buy a diet Coke.

A starvation diet in this circumstance would only be recommended by a fool.

A starvation diet? Are you serious? The U.S. uses at least double the per capita oil of most of the rest of the world (with few exceptions) and you think cutting back by 5% is starving? This mentality - that if we have to make choices and be more conservative with our fuel usage we are 'starving' - is exactly the reason we are in this situation of politicians perpetually pandering on gas prices.

This last year the price of oil went from $92 to $147 a barrel, affecting the price of everything shipped everywhere as well as drivers directly.
That's a huge hit in the wallet.
The average consumer cutting back 5% won't save any money at all and expenses are rising. Let's say the average consumer used 1000 gallons of gas for a year--5% is just 50 gallons of gas, $200. Groceries alone have
gone up several times that.

Most people are also a lot poorer than you are Robert. Try to remember that!

You're so busy demonizing the US consumer that you can't see that
this is an opportunity to educate him--he knows there's a problem...maybe now's a good time buy a more efficient car, look for ways to cut back/cut out energy consumption, no more long distance vacations, stop wasting money generally, etc.

"The problem is that americans can't afford gas now, not in 30 or 20 or 8 years(ANWR)."

Get real, fuel prices in America are ridiculously low compared to other countries and Americans drive cars with the worst fuel consumption. Spain is introducing a 90kmh (55mph) speed limit. Switzerland is looking to ban gas guzzlers from entering the country.

Many fine brains worldwide are trying to work out solutions but are not helped by sheeple demanding the god given right to drive cars at high speed with fuel at the price they think is reasonable.

The American People (As a Whole) might be the ultimate owners of that fuel, but that doesn't mean that this Trust Fund should just be sprinkled out around us to be slurped up in the current feeding frenzy that Americans now expect.

Solutions need to be found, but this is the wrong kind of Methodone for our addiction. No more donuts for you!

(And noone took me up on my innumeracy. 20mbd times 35 days (not 50) would be 700million barrels. Clearly for hypothetical purposes, anyway. Oops!)

The withdrawal rate from the SPR is given in wikipedia. Wikipedia calls it the maximum draw down rate. At maximum
draw down rate the SPR is emptied in about 175 days, not 50 and not 35. The max draw down rate is 4mb/day, which would be 20% of our current use. Our internal production, which would not be stopped by foreign cut off of imports is, approx. 30% of current use, is 6mb/day. The total available while drawing down the SPR would be 6+4 = 10mb/day.

Folks, take the time to reread what I posted. It concerns the draw down rate, which is the limiting factor. And because of the maximum draw down rate, we cannot feed our full thirst for oil for even one day by using the SPR. When we shift from imports to using the SPR, our daily oil supply drops by half for 175 days and then drops to 6 mb/day. Then, of course, it declines more slowly as our existing oil wells gradually give out.

Great point about Pelosi's hypocrisy/ignorance, but then again, spotting hypocritical/ignorant politicians is a little like shooting fish in a barrel. To me it seems very clear that it is up to individual and local community initiative to solve this problem while big government will simply be one more impediment. After all, government is simply a reflection of the average person.

It seems to me it might not make much of a difference to the eventual state of the global warming problem.

Again, it isn't the burning of the oil in the SPR that is the issue. It is the idea that this could cause gas prices to fall just when people are showing that they are taking action to reduce their consumption. After all, why dump your SUV if politicians are going to see to it (or at least promise) that gas prices will go back down? On the other hand, if I know high gas prices are here to stay, then that SUV looks much less appealing.

While not from US myself, we have a similar reserve ourselves where I live.

This reserve just as SPR is dedicated for emergency uses, like a severe supply disruption.

Granted, SPR has been used for other situations before, but the last time I checked, two wrongs don't make it right.

As such, the main question I would ask about tapping the SPR is this:

Is the situation now an emergency of such a magnitude that US really needs to tap into the SPR?

If so, then may good fortune help us all, because we're surely going to need that luck if/when things get a bit more iffy.

To me emergency means emergency - not discomfort and cyclical economical downturn. Just by observing from a couch, US is still far away from an emergency. Hurting? Yes. In a state of emergency? Surely not.

There's plenty of more money in other parts of the US budget where to get money for alternative energy systems, infrastructure upgrades and other wise investments. The first place I'd look into is the defense budget as it is pretty much bottomless. Even the value of SPR pales in comparison.

The SPR exists to9 support the military in war time, and maybe then to support those industries deemed most essential to keep the military going.

The SPR is all about keeping on killing until there is no more "enemy" or no more "us."

This whole discussion is a kind of blasphemy -- as though Pelosi or any other politician actually cares enough to know or knows enough to care.

I don't know many people in the USA who care enough to know.

I don't think that I know very many people who know enough to care.

Politicians are especially fond of Intentional Ignorance, as this is the essence of Corporatist propaganda.

The SPR does not matter, except as a purely militaristic resource, and so it will be talked about as if it does matter in environmental or economic terms.

Are there any other topics we can discuss that do not actually matter, but which can take up time and energy so that we can avoid topics which do matter? We can list them and present them to the Military-Industrial Complex as our contribution to The War Effort.

I am not an American so it really is none of my business butisn't the Strategic Petroleum Reserve supposed to be a source of last resort in a wartime situation? It wouldseem to me that anyone who advocates tapping that reserve is committing an anti-patriotic act. Next it will be a call to dismantle the nuclear weapons to get the urnaium out to keep Vegas going, whilethe world goes to hell with Russia strangling Europe and Iran obliterating Israel! You guys do know what to do come November...don't you?

I really think it's futile to expect our so-called "leaders" to do anything but reflect the public's biases, prejudices, and ignorance. Those who expect our leaders to magically come up with some backbone and an effective message to persuade the US public that higher gas prices are desirable or necessary are forgetting the political history of the last 30 years and engaging in wishful thinking, IMO.

I understand the SPR to be oriented to military and especially wartime use. Our perpetual WAG or whatever the Neocons call it these days is not an excuse to lower the price of gas for civilian consumers.

However, anuthing can be re-framed into anything else these days.

Truth is lost. Meaning is lost.

I try to focus on my small circle, but the big circle keeps encroaching.

Normally I would argue against wasting the SPR to lower the price of gas for the SUV goof-squad of yuppies and soccer moms. But since it is highly likely that the SPR is going to end up being used by each successively more despotic regime to crush the population into submission... yeah, we may as well just go ahead and use it all up right now.

Beware email scams!

Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.

“Most people spend more time and energy going around problems than in trying to solve them.”